
HS 766 
■ A8 
1887 

Copy 1 


THgnisSw Soft's 
?b’3L. r CLI3RAR f 


ASTOR, LENOX AND 
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS, 
1837 . 


"7 


■: mz/;; 



A REPLY 


-A 


TO A PAMPHLET ENTITLED 


“ Important Action of the Grand Lodge, 
F. & A. Masons, of Ohio. For every 
Master Mason to Read. Published and 


Distributed by Order of the Grand 
Master.” 


PUBLISHED IN THE INTERESTS OF 


FREE MASONRY 

































b 0 0 




ASTOCOV^NU* 

TILD<N^OUNDATiONS. 

^ 1897 . 

“ Oppression shall not always reign, 

There comes a brighter day, 

When Truth released from Error’s thrall, 
Shall once again have sway.” 


To the Masters , Wardens and Brethren , under the jur¬ 
isdiction of the Grand Lodge of the Fraternity of 
Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Ohio. 

Respected Brethren:— 

Having been frequently called upon by many of the mem¬ 
bers of our bodies to refute certain slanderous reports which have 
been industriously circulated by our opponents, concerning the 
authenticity and legality of the Supreme Council for the United 
States of America, their Territories and Dependencies, and the 
usages therein practised, and being fully convinced that the time 
has arrived when these false charges should be met and answered, 
we have come to the conclusion to address you in this form, and 
in this public manner, in order that not only you yourselves, as 
members of the Grand Lodge, but all who are not mem¬ 
bers, may read for themselves, and learn the reasons which have 
led us to pursue this course in the defense of our Sup. *. Council, 
and be able to judge for themselves of the propriety and cor¬ 
rectness of our defense. 

It is not strange that those who oppose us should manifest deep 
feeling upon this subject. For a long series of years, the self-con¬ 
stituted leaders of the Northern Jurisdiction, Scottish Rite, have 
managed to hold and enjoy the principal offices of the Grand Lodge, 
and their success and prosperity have made them reckless. It 
is said in the Scriptures that “when Jeshurum waxed fat, he 
kicked.” Supposing that they were secure from interruption— 
partly from the ignorance of the younger brethren and partly 
from the influence which they could exert over the better in¬ 
formed—the leaders and wire-pullers assumed to themselves 
Pozvers which were totally at variance with the Constitution of 







of our land, guaranteeing to every individual citizen “ the right 
of private judgment—free thought—free speech—free action— 
and the right to worship God according to the dictates of his 
own conscience, without any one to molest or make him afraid,” 
contrary to the Constitution of the State of Ohio,—contrary to 
the General Laws, Rules and Regulations of Masonry, and un¬ 
precedented in the history or usage of other Grand Lodges, not 
only of this country, but of the world. 

The cause of the issuance of this circular is a pamphlet, 
“published and distributed by order of the Grand Master” of 
the State of Ohio, and paid for out of the treasury of the Grand 
Lodge. The pamphlet is largely made up of two speeches de¬ 
livered at the annual communications of the Grand Lodge of 
1886 and 1887, by the Grand Orator Bro. Allen Andrews (32° 
Northern Jurisdiction). The pamphlet is headed “As to Grand 
Lodge Sovereignty.” 

It is an old saying, but a very true one, that “wonders 
never cease,” and this saying is more than usually applicable to 
the publishing and distribution of this pamphlet. To say it was 
issued in the sole interest, and for the sole welfare of the Grand 
Lodge and its subordinates, would not be true ; as the calm un¬ 
prejudiced reader will readily discover on a fair study of its con¬ 
tents. For many years the Grand Lodge has majestically moved 
along in the even tenor of her way, diligently attending to her 
duties, and refraining from participating in the dissensions 
and quarrels of foreign Rites, and as a result, peace and harmony 
have reigned within her borders. And, during all that time, 
there was no occasion found, that would justify the issuance of 
a pamphlet similar to the one in question. Had this time hon¬ 
ored policy (or Monroe doctrine) been continued, the Masonic 
Fraternity would have been spared the present unfraternal strife 
and discord that now exists in the Order, and the disgrace placed 
upon it by the official “publishing and distribution” of a pamph¬ 
let “filled with untrue statements and false conclusions.” Far 
better would it have been for the welfare of the craft had Allen 
Andrews taken more pains to inform himself relative to the facts 
and merits of the case that he and his coadjutors had the cool 
assurance and vanity to alone decide upon. Had they given 


3 


their decision based upon reliable proofs, it would have been bet¬ 
ter for their reputations as exalted officers of the Grand Lodge, 
occupying impartial and responsible positions in the Masonic 
Fraternity. But the whole thing is clearly the work of E. T. 
Carson, (33 0 , the Deputy for the Nor.*. Jurisdiction Scottish 
Rite, and his “ring,”), and not that of the great body of our 
brother Master Masons who belong to the Northern Jurisdiction 
Scottish Rite, who, we feel assured, do not approve of the per¬ 
secution, and oppressive measures attempted against their 
brother Master Masons who are members of the Anc. *. Acc. *. 
Rite (Cerneau) in Ohio since 1884. 

To attempt to refute in detail every untrue statement, and 
false reasoning, made and set forth in the pamphlet, would re¬ 
quire more time and space than can be given to the reader in 
these pages. But in order to refute, fully and completely, the 
entire pamphlet, and its aim and object, it will only be necessary 
to notice what appears to cover the whole ground assumed by the 
Grand Master, and that which forms the basis of Bro. Andrews 
whole argument in behalf of the Grand Master’s decisions—that 
of “Grand Lodge Sovereignty” which heads the pamphlet. 

The pamphlet starts out with the following: 

“ At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge held at Cleveland, 
Ohio, 1886, and at Dayton, Ohio, 1887, decisive action was taken on the vital 
question of Masonic Sovereignty. The integrity of our Order, and the power 
of the Grand Lodge to decide what is and what is not Masonry, was questioned. 
The right and power of the Grand Lodge to protect itself against fraudulent 
bodies claiming to be Masonic was also denied.” 

On page 7 of the pamphlet, Andrews says: 

“This is not a question of merit between the regular and the ‘Cerneau’ Scot¬ 
tish Rite Masons. It does not involve the origin, antiquity, legitimacy, regular¬ 
ity, or supremacy of either organization. It is not a mere question of superior¬ 
ity in birth, rite, ceremony, influence, power, or numbers between these bodies. 
As Master Masons we are not interested in the slightest degree in any contro¬ 
versy that may prevail over these points. Still, however, this is a question of 
great moment to us—it is a question of Masonic Sovereignty.” 

Now, it will be observed from the above quotations that the 
author of the pamphlet explicitly ignores and discards from his 
argument, if such it can be called, every question other than 
that of “ Grand Lodge Sovereignty.” His words are plain and 


4 


cannot be misunderstood. They are supposed to mean 
just what they say. And he says all this after having— 
to quote his own words— “had a revolution of sen¬ 
timent on this subject/’ But the reader will notice 
further along, that this “revolution of sentiment” must 
have affected Bro. Andrews frequently, as what he so positively 
declares in 1886, he just as positively ignores in 1887. In 1886 
he says, “As Master Masons we are not interested in the slight¬ 
est degree in any controversy that may prevail over these points” 
— “legitimacy, regularity.” In 1887 he says, “We must treat 
these ‘Cerneaus'—and hold them clandestine, irregular, illegiti¬ 
mate and unmasonic.” (See pamphlet, page 15.) Another 
such “revolution of sentiment” in 1888 will surely crush the 
poor Cerneaus beyond all hope. But Andrews says ‘ ‘It is a ques¬ 
tion of Masonic Sovereignty.” Let us see what there is in it. 

This doctrine of “Grand Lodge Sovereignty” is a new 
thing. From the commencement of Masonry it has been the 
opinion of the Fraternity that a Grand Lodge, being formed by 
Master Masons only, and its Constitution framed by them, 
defining its Duties and Boundaries, took cognizance of the 
first three degrees only, as defined in the Constitution which 
it had received, and could legislate only upon the same. Be¬ 
yond this it had no right or power to go. The Constitu¬ 
tion did not mention or refer to any further power, and the 
Delegates sent to the Grand Lodge had nothing whatever to do 
with any Masonry but the first three degrees. This course of 
conduct has always been pursued by all Grand Lodges in Europe, 
and in our own land from 1717 to about 1883. Their troubles 
have been with Grand Lodges, and only with these when they 
considered themselves entitled to interfere. All powers vested 
in a Grand Lodge come from the subordinate bodies which 
created it, and they could give to the Grand Body only what 
they had—the three degrees and no more, notwithstanding An¬ 
drews’ assertion to the contrary. The Body was created to 
Govern, Superintend, and Regulate the work of all its Subordi¬ 
nate bodies only in the Three Degrees, grant Charters and Dis¬ 
pensations, etc. It has full power and sovereignty over the 
three Symbolic degrees and no more. 


5 


That a Grand Lodge is sovereign over its own bodies and 
its own ritual cannot be denied, but it is denied that a Grand 
Lodge has the power to interfere with Rites and Orders not 
infringing upon the degrees it controls, «or the power to 
prohibit Master Masons from connecting themselves with 
such Rites or Orders. As far as the first three degrees 
of Masonry are concerned, the members of the Grand 
Lodge are delegated to supervise and superintend the work, 
check all irregularities, grant warrants, dispensations, certificates, 
etc., and perform the work they are called upon to do. But 
beyond this they cannot go. The body proper has no connec¬ 
tion with a Chapter or Commandery, nor are the members to 
know in their official capacity, anything about those bodies. 
All the powers which a Grand Lodge possesses are delegated to 
it by the Lodges which constituted it, and are laid down in the 
constitution they adopt, and all Lodges coming in after its being 
constituted, pay obedience to it as their constitutional governor. 
These duties, with others which are not necessary to be mention¬ 
ed here, but which are laid down in the constitution, the Grand 
Master and members are bound to perform. Beyond and out¬ 
side of these duties they have no right to go. 

It may be properly asked: What right, or power, has a 
Grand Lodge of Master Masons to decide upon the legitimacy, 
regularity or legality of Degrees, Rites and Orders, which are 
totally distinct from the first three degrees of Masonry, of which 
it is assured it has no knowledge except by “hearsay" or to 
declare them spurious because some people doubt their authen¬ 
ticity? As well might it be proclaimed by the Grand Lodge, 
that the Royal Order of Scotland, lately introduced into this 
country by Albert Pike, the Society of Rosicrucians, the 
Mystic Shrine, Royal Masonic Rite, Primitive Rite, and the 
International Society of Owls, and a host of other Rites and 
Orders, all of which require their membership to be Master 
Masons in good standing—are all “illegal, irregular and unma- 
sonic,” simply because the Grand Master had given that opin¬ 
ion, and called upon the members to confirm it. This 
action is simply preposterous and absurd, and could not 
be sustained in any Court of Justice when brought before 


6 


it. The Judge who sits upon the Bench to try—the Jury to 
hear the evidence , and the Lawyer to plead the case—require 
evidence. They will not countenance or take “ hear-say. ” 
They insist upon Facts —without them the case would be dis¬ 
missed. The same precisely should be the proceeding in the 
Grand Lodge, in a proper case. But, in this matter, contrary 
to all precedent, the Grand Master on the Bench, declares to 
the Grand Lodge—the Jury— his opinion, wherein he pro¬ 
nounces the “ Cerneaus ” guilty, before a trial is had, or a 
particle of evidence offered to prove them so, and a verdict is 
rendered, not on Proofs , Facts , or lazvful evidence offered, but 
on the “ say so ” of the Judge on the Bench, and such flaming 
speeches as that of Andrews. 

By its action, the Grand Lodge of Ohio has declared itself 
to be the Censor and Judge of all the Degrees, Rites and Or¬ 
ders whose members are also Master Masons. In doing so, it 
would have a large amount of work to do, and a large amount 
of knowledge to obtain, in order to decide upon Thirty to Forty 
different Rites which are now practiced in Europe and this 
country under different names. The Grand Lodge of Ohio, as 
a body, cannot know anything about these degrees, but takes 
upon itself at the nod and beck of one man, to decide which is 
right, and which is wrong. The powers assumed by the Grand 
Lodge to act as Censor and Judge upon all Rites and Degrees 
under the name of Masonry beyond and outside of the first three 
or symbolic degrees, are unconstitutional and unlawful, and 
cannot be sustained. 

The doctrine of “no appeal from the decision of the Grand 
Master” is also a new thing in the Order. Undoubtedly there 
have been some tricksters in the Order who have written much 
upon this subject, and have asserted that the doctrine of “ no ap¬ 
peal" was Masonic Law and usage, but it was not known that any 
Grand Lodge had ever adopted it as a Law, or that any number 
of well informed Masons could be found in the land who would 
have the effrontery to advocate the same. If the Grand Lodge 
of Ohio has such an article in its Constitution, it is high time 
that it was stricken out. Masons are not yet slaves. They 
live in a land of Free Speech—Free Opinions, and they can 


7 


judge for themselves and act as they please. Masonry is a Rep¬ 
resentative Institution here, and no law can make it otherwise. 
Common sense teaches that a man is simply silly who attempts 
to pass judgment on a thing, or matter that he knows nothing 
about. This doctrine of “no appeal ” has been the source of 
much trouble and confusion to the Craft, and in nearly every 
case where an attempt has been made to introduce it, it has 
been trampled under foot, as being contrary to Republican 
principles, and to the General Laws, Rules and Regulations of 
Masonry. In 1851, the Grand Master of California made a large 
number of Masons at sight, on horseback, on foot, and on the 
highways, or wherever he could find them, and pocketed the 
money. Having been called upon by the Grand Lodge for an 
explanation, he openly and boldly declared, that it had no 
right whatever to call his acts in question—that his power over 
the Order was supreme—that he could do no wrong. (See 
Proc. Cal. Gr. \ L. *.) He was soon disposed of, and the whole 
thing annulled. This is only one of many instances that could 
be cited to show what there is in this doctrine of “no appeal ” 
from the Grand Master’s decision. It is in harmony with and 
closely allied to the new doctrine of ‘ ‘ Grand Lodge Sovereignty ” 
as proclaimed by Allen Andrews. 

Upon this subject Bro. Parvin, 33 0 of the Southern Juris¬ 
diction Scottish Rite, has this to say: 

“It is.well known now, as it has long been known, that we deny such in¬ 
herent rights as is claimed by Brother Cunningham and others to have been 
vested in Grand Masters by an ancient law, usage, or custom, other than their 
imperious will and gross acts of usurpation. We are not inclined, and never 
have been, to detract from Grand Masters any right, power, privilege, or pre¬ 
rogative, with which they have been constitutionally endowed. But we do not 
bow down and worship the little gods and yearlings who for a brief space of 
time, once invested with the purple, arrogate to themselves infallible and im¬ 
maculate powers. We do hold and know that constitutions are older than 
Grand Masters; that the first and every subsequent Grand Master has been 
made by a constitution ; and as it is a law of nature that a stream cannot rise 
above its fountain, so it is a Masonic law that no creature can be above its 
creator.” (See Proc. Gr. Lodge, Iowa.) 

The question now may be properly asked,—where did this 
new doctrine of “Grand Lodge Sovereignty” originate, and 
what is the cause of the hatred, bitterness and animosity dis- 


8 


played on the part of those who have invented it and who 
oppose the Anc. \ Acc. *. Rite for the U. \ S. \ A. \ 
(Cerneau), and have succeeded in causing that noble body,— 
the Grand Lodge of Ohio,—to forsake and ignore the most sa¬ 
cred principles of Charity, Sympathy and Love, and engage in 
a crusade of persecution against her own offspring ? 

We shall endeavor to answer this question, and solve this 
apparent mystery in a way that will, we think, be perfectly 
satisfactory to every member of the Grand Lodge, and place 
the matter in such a clear light, that he who runs may read and 
judge for himself. 

In 1801, 1807 and 1814 there were organized at Charleston, 
South Carolina, and in New York City, respectively, three 
bodies of what is commonly known as the “Scottish Rite.” 
That of 1801 is now known as the Southern Jurisdiction, and 
was founded by the followers of Stephen Morin, after his author¬ 
ity to confer the Grades and establish bodies had been revoked 
(See Proc. G. O. F., 1766.) That of 1807 is known as the 
Ancient Accepted Rite for the United States of America, 
their Territories and Dependencies, but for short is frequently 
termed the “Cerneau Rite,” after its founder, Ill. Joseph 
Cerneau. That of 1814 is known as the Northern Jurisdiction, 
but is frequently called the De La Motta Rite, after its founder, 
Emmanuel De La Motta. These different Rites were at strife 
with each other almost from the moment of their conception— 
each contending for supremacy—forgetting “that harmony is 
the strength and support of all institutions.” 

The Southern Jurisdiction went to sleep shortly after its 
creation and was revived again about the year i860, by Albert 
Pike, its present Gr. *. Commander. 

The Northern Jurisdiction went to sleep also in 1816, and 
began to revive in 1845, coming fully into existence about the 
year 1848. It was revived by J. J. J. Gourgas, and is thus at 
times called the Gourgas Council. 

The Cerneau Council ceased its labors in 1827, at the be¬ 
ginning of the anti-Masonic excitement, and at its close resumed 
work again in 1832. 

In the year i860 the Cerneau Council was commanded by 


9 


Edmund B. Hays, and the Northern Jur. \ Council by Edward 
A. Raymond. In that year a split' occurred in the Northern 
Council, and as a result two Councils were formed, 
one led by Raymond, and the seceders by K. H. Van 
Rensellaer, who established his Rite in Ohio. Subse¬ 
quently both these bodies bitterly opposed each other, and 
finally issued edicts expelling each other. The Van Rensellaer 
faction soon became weakened, and sought recognition from its 
Mother, the Southern Council (See Reprint of N. J.), but was 
refused, and it is said, in order to increase its membership, it 
set itself to work to obtain the leading men in the Grand Lodge 
of Massachusetts as members of the 33rd degree at the cheap 
rate of $5.00 per man. They were successful in this move , and 
secured, according to the statement of an active member, over 
one hundred members, among the number of which were a 
large number of Past Grand Masters, and various officers, past 
and present, and other notable masons. Thus they obtained 
control of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. 

In 1863, Feb’y 18th, the Raymond Council adjourned sine 
die (See N. J. Reprint), and the members were consolidated 
with the Cerneau Council. (See Reprint.) Thus the Raymond 
N. \ Jur.*. Council became extinct, and merged beyond recall, 
into the Cerneau Council. In 1865 Edmund B. Hays, the 
Commander of the Cerneau Council, being an invalid, resigned, 
and Simon W. Robinson, a former Raymond man, succeeded to 
the office of Gr. \ Commander. In 1866, overtures were re¬ 
ceived by the Cerneau Council from the Van Rensellaer Coun¬ 
cil proposing to unite with the Cerneau Body. A committee 
was appointed by the Cerneau Council to consider the proposi¬ 
tion, but was forbidden to do anything that would affect the 
then present “status of the Council” until the next annual 
meeting, which was appointed for October, 1867. This resolu¬ 
tion was adopted in June, 1866. But in the mean time the 
Raymond faction with Robinson at their head (that had been 
merged into the Cerneau Council in 1863) were plotting with 
Albert Pike of the Southern Council, to overthrow the Cerneau 
organization and erect upon its ruins the old De La Motta- 
Gourgas-Raymond, Northern Jurisdiction. An emissary had 


IO 


visited Pike, and obtained his consent to the movement, which 
finally culminated in Dec.,* 1866 (See Reprint), when Robinson 
and his followers secretly deserted and abandoned the Cerneau 
Council, went off to Boston, and went through the form of reviv¬ 
ing the old Raymond Council, and “breathing into it the breath 
of life, ” and renewing its “vital energies” which they claim had 
only “been suspended,” while being merged into the Cerneau 
Council. (See Reprint.) 

The next year, 1867, the revived Raymond Council formed 
a union-with the Van Rensellaer Council, from which it had 
split in i860. These two bodies coming together, after a 
separation of a few years, formed the present Northern Juris¬ 
diction Sup.*. Council. (See Reprint.) 

The fact of the abandonment of the Cerneau Council, by 
Robinson and his followers, was carefully concealed from the Cer¬ 
neau members, with the exception of two or three. Many were 
told that the movement to Boston was to “take in the Van Ren¬ 
sellaer Council,” but the truth came to light in 1881, when the 
Northern Jurisdiction leaders, believing all opposition beneath 
their feet, issued a “Reprint” of their Council’s Proceedings, thus 
exposing the fraud. And in that year, 1881, Hopkins Thompson 
(the Lieut. Gr. *. Commander under Edmund B. Hays in 1863, 
at the moment the Raymond Council was absorbed, and the 
legal and rightful successor to Hays the moment Robinson and 
the Raymond body abandoned the Cerneau Council,) with many 
veterans of the old Cerneau Council—revived and resuscitated 
their Council under its old title. 

The re-united Northern Jurisdiction, after being recognized 
by the Southern Jurisdiction, undertook to secure the Grand 
Lodge of Mass., and succeeded, by persuading the members 
of the Grand Lodge that the Sup. \ Councils of the Northern 
and Southern Jurisdictions were the only correct Sup. *. Councils 
in the United States, and the Grand Lodge under such influence, 
then made the declaration, that these two Councils only 
were correct, and as such would be acknowledged and 
sustained. This was the first point gained in obtaining 
absolute power in that State. Before the acknowledgment, 
the Anc. *. and Accepted Rite was entirely distinct and 


II 


separate from all other Rites. The absolute evil of this 
act caused a great sensation throughout the Masonic Fraternity, 
and was considered unjustifiable and contrary to the General 
Laws, Rules and Regulations of Masonry in the United States, 
and was properly judged to be a mode of obtaining absolute, 
autocratic power over the whole Fraternity. This was the be¬ 
ginning and origin of that false doctrine of Grand Lodge Sov¬ 
ereignty,” which Bro. Allen Andrews (32 0 of the Scottish 
Rite) takes as the text for his pamphlet, and which he so 
loudly proclaims to the Master Masons of Ohio. 

Having concocted their plan to establish autocratic gov¬ 
ernment irk Masonry, the Thirty-thirds concluded to bring 
the matter, in shape of a Resolution, before the Grand 
Lodge, with a view of altering the Constitution. The 
Resolution shut out all Master Masons from taking the degrees 
of the Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite from any Body or Bodies, except 
the Northern and Southern Sup. \ Councils, and debarred all who 
were members of the Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite for the U. S. A. from 
any office in a Blue Lodge, under penalty of expulsion. In 
order to succeed in getting the resolutions through, they “posted 
the State , ” and through influence'obtained a majority vote. They 
passed the Resolution in the Grand Lodge, and at the annual 
meeting the vote was confirmed, thus amending the Constitution, 
and cutting off all communication with any Scottish Rite bodies 
except those of the Northern and Southern Jurisdictions. After 
the law was passed, it made a great disturbance in the Order, and 
the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts has ignored the law and 
never sought to enforce it by expulsion, as the Order would lose 
many hundreds of good and loyal members. As before stated, 
the Grand Lodge was controlled by Northern Jurisdiction men, 
the Grand Master was a Northern Jurisdiction man, and the suc¬ 
cession was already prepared by them. But when the election 
came off, the members of the Grand Lodge with one accord 
broke down the succession, and elected a member who could 
rule impartially, leaving the conspirators in the lurch. Since 
which time the law has become void. It has never been enforced, 
nor can it be in Massachusetts. 

After this law was passed in Massachusetts, a strong 


12 


effort was made by the conspirators to induce other Grand 
Lodges to follow in the same course, but they failed 
in the effort. It was brought before the Grand Lodge 
of New Hampshire and failed. It followed in Connec¬ 
ticut with the same result. New York would not listen 
to the proposals and passed it by. Minnesota negatived the 
whole thing. Wyoming rejected it, Pennsylvania ignored it, 
Montana would not consent to it, and when brought before other 
Grand Lodges it will meet with the same fate. But it was left 
for Ohio alone to imitate Massachusetts, and follow in her foot¬ 
steps, at the bidding of E. T. Carson, 33rd, Deputy of the 
Northern Jurisdiction and his coterie of followers, who have 
worked hard for some years in favor of this detestable measure 
with a degree of malice and bitterness unparalleled. But he has 
the satisfaction of knowing that he has at last initiated a war 
among the Master Masons of Ohio, that has shaken the grand 
old Order to its foundations, and produced more injury to the 
Masonic interest and the Fraternity than anything that ever hap¬ 
pened to them in Ohio. 

In 1884, Carson attempted to introduce the “Rite war” 
into the Grand Lodge at Columbus, but was “sat down on” by 
an overwhelming vote, and peace was continued. But as soon 
as the Grand Lodge came under the control of Carson’s Nor. \ 
Jur. \ men, the attempt was renewed with better success, as the 
Fraternity now knows to its sorrow. In 1886, the Grand Master, 
Samuel Stacker Williams (then a 32 0 , now a 33 0 of the Northern 
Jurisdiction), promulgated the following edict which appeared in 
the Cincinnati Gazette of April 4, 1886, and will be found on 
page 4 of Andrews’ pamphlet. 

“To the Worshipful Masters of Lodges, and all brethren throughout this 
Jurisdiction : The question comes to us from so many sources as to whether the 
Grand Lodge has recognized as legal Masonic bodies, the bodies styled by their 
members, bodies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, 
subordinate to the ‘Supreme Council of the United States of America, their Ter¬ 
ritories and Dependencies’ (so styled), but better known as the Cerneau bodies, 
and also as to the propriety of Lodges in this jurisdiction occupying halls jointly 
with such organizations, I am prompted to take this means of reaching the Wor¬ 
shipful Masters and Lodges, and answering all at once. 

First—The Grand Lodge has not, in any manner, recognized these organiza¬ 
tions as legal Masonic bodies. 


13 


Second—I have decided, and now hold that Rule 79 of oux - Code of Masonic 
Jurisprudence bars Lodges in this Jurisdiction from occupying halls jointly with 
such organizations. 

Worshipful Masters and Lodges will, therefore, take notice that they are 
forbidden to occupy halls jointly with the bodies above referred to.” 

This remarkable decision created a sensation throughout 
the country, and afterwards proved to be, not only the entering 
wedge of discord, but the the beginning in Ohio of the Massa¬ 
chusetts doctrine of “ Grand Lodge Sovereignty.’’ No part of 
the Fraternity were more astonished when the Decision was pub¬ 
lished in the public newspapers than the members of the Anc. *. 
Acc. *. Rite, (Cerneau), for the following reasons: 

First. —They had never by authority dr consent of their 
Grand Consistory, asked for or sought ‘ ‘ recog¬ 
nition ” from the Grand Lodge of Ohio. 

Second. —Being a Rite foreign to, and totally distinct from, 
the Grand Lodge and its subordinates, it would 
be absurd and useless to seek for or receive 
recognition from that Body r . 

Third. —They do not claim to be a “ Masonic Body,” but 
simply a Body of Masons . 

Fourth. —They have always been, and are now, opposed 
to “ occupying halls jointly with Blue Lodges.” 
If they have in the past ‘ ‘ occupied halls jointly” 
with such lodges, it has been for temporary use 
only, until proper halls could be secured, and 
for which they have paid rent. Surely, under 
these circumstances, there could be no contam¬ 
ination, when both parties to such contracts 
were all Master Masons in good standing. 

The Bodies of the Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite for the United States 
of America, (Cerneau) do not come under the appellation of 
“ Masonic Bodies,” but are strictly known as “Bodies of 
Masons,” which terms are of widely different significance. A 
Master Masons’ Lodge is a Masonic Body , but the Royal Order 
of Scotland is a Body of Masons ; all its members are required to 


14 


be Master Masons before they can receive the degree. Now, 
because they are all Master Masons, it does not follow that the 
Royal Order of Scotland is a “Masonic Body.” And so it is 
with the Royal Masonic Rite, Primitive Rite, Mystic Shrine, 
Rosicrucians, and a host of other Rites and Orders which require 
their members to be Master Masons. This doctrine of distinc¬ 
tion, although a true one, seems to be but little understood. 
The members of the Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite (Cerneau) do not meet 
together as Master Masons, to confer degrees properly belong¬ 
ing to Symbolic Free Masonry, or interfere in anyway with the 
Three Degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft or Master 
Mason, which all of them have not only received, but which they 
highly reverence and esteem. Like all the other aforementioned 
Rites, this Rite requires its neophytes to be Master Masons in 
good standing, which certainly is no discredit to Blue Lodge 
Masonry. 

In support of this singular decision of the Grand Master, 
Bro. Allen Andrews (32 0 N. J.), on pages 7 and 11 of his 
pamphlet, delivers himself of the following : 

“ These ‘ Cerneaus ’ claiming to be Masonic Bodies, intrude themselves 
upon us ; they insist under Section 79 of the Code, upon the right of joint occu¬ 
pancy with the Lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge. They demand recog¬ 
nition of this right by the Subordinate Lodges of this State.” 

“Now since 1881, an organization known as the ‘Cerneau' Rite, claim¬ 
ing to be Masonic, asks the same recognition under Section 79 heretofore accord¬ 
ed to the Masonic Bodies.” 

All of which is untrue from beginning to end. This false 
statement has not the shadow of an excuse, but was evidently 
set forth to influence the members of the Grand Lodge to vote 
to sustain the Grand Master’s decision, and to pave the way for 
the introduction of the Massachusetts doctrine of “Grand Lodge 
Sovereignty.” But to be specific: 

“These Cerneaus,” as Andrews is pleased to term them, 
did not exist as such in Ohio “since 1881.” They do not “claim 
to be Masonic Bodies.” They have never “intruded them¬ 
selves upon the Grand Lodge of Ohio.” They have never , 
by authority of their governing body, “insisted under Sec¬ 
tion 79 of the Code upon the right of joint occupancy with 


15 


lodges subordinate to this Grand Lodge.” They have never 
with consent or authority, “ demanded recognition of this right 
by subordinate lodges of this State.” They have never , with 
consent or authority from their governing body, asked “the 
same recognition under Section 79 heretofore accorded to Ma¬ 
sonic Bodies.” They have never asked any recognition of the 
Grand Lodge of Ohio, or of any other Grand Body of the York 
Rite. Such statements are enough to make the honest Mason 
cry, “ Shame ! where is thy blush.” 

The next move in the “Grand Lodge Sovereignty” pro¬ 
gramme was made at the Annual Communication of the Grand 
Lodge at Dayton, Ohio, when the Grand Master volunteered the 
following decision : 

“4. Inquiries have been made by a large number of brethren as to the le¬ 
gality of certain bodies in this Jurisdiction, claiming to be Masonic, which go 
under the name of ‘Cerneau Bodies of the A. and A. S. Rite.’ 

Answer. —A reference to my decision No. 18, made last year, and approved 
by the Grand Lodge, has, in most cases, been a sufficient answer. But a more 
specific answer has been requested by some who are members of-such bodies , and 
who desire a direct answer to the question, ‘ Are they regular or irregular, and 
legal or illegal?’ To such, the answer has been as definite as could be desired, 
viz.: That they are irregular, illegal, and unmasonic, and ought not to be coun¬ 
tenanced or recognized in any manner by brethren under obedience to this Grand 
Lodge.” 

This decision was referred to the Committee on Jurispru¬ 
dence, all members of the Northern Jurisdiction, who recom¬ 
mended its approval. 

Here we have again the same old story of the Cerneau Bod¬ 
ies “claiming to be Masonic. ” What we have already said upon 
this point is doubtless sufficient. But we would add that it 
seems to be a little singular, that after the Cerneau Bodies have 
been declared not Masonic , a persistent effort should be made to 
make them Masonic. If they are not Masonic , by what process 
of reasoning can a “ Masonic Body , ” such as the Grand Lodge of 
Ohio, interfere with them, or attempt to proscribe their mem¬ 
bers or abridge their rights. The Cerneau Bodies do not claim 
to be Masonic Bodies , as has already been shown. The Grand 
Master decides that they are not Masonic Bodies —then what fur¬ 
ther evidence is required to satisfy all fair-minded Masons that 


16 


the Cerneau Bodies do not come within the purview of the Grand 
Lodge of Ohio. But this logic apparently fails to satisfy the 
leaders and advocates of Autocracy and “Grand Lodge Sover¬ 
eignty.” Their programme must be carried out at all hazards. 

In making this decision the Worthy Grand Master has 
gone a step further, and has taken it upon himself to alone 
decide the Anc. *. Acc.'. Rite (Cerneau).“ irregular, illegal and 
unmasonic, etc.” However, the Grand Master has now expressed 
his opinion, and we must accord him personally the right to 
express it. But we deny its correctness. It must be remem¬ 
bered, however, that this is the opinion of one man only. It is im¬ 
possible for one man, or a set of men, to alter the recorded 
facts of history. Men will read and judge for themselves. Call¬ 
ing a respectable body of men “illegal, irregular and unma¬ 
sonic,” does not make them so. It requires Facts and Proofs 
to substantiate the charge. What would be thought of the 
judge on the bench first deciding the prisoner at the bar guilty, 
and then asking the jury to confirm his decision, without going 
through the ceremony of a trial, or offering any evidence that 
might prove the culprit innocent or guilty ? Certainly such a 
course would not be in accord with our much boasted American 
principles of Justice and Fairness. 

But Andrews, on page 14 of his pamphlet, says : 

“It (the Grand Lodge) has the power to decide what bodies claiming Masonic 
character are legitimate, and what are illegitimate. And it may recommend to 
the Masons fellowship with the former and prohibit them from affiliation with 
the latter. These propositions are truisms, and I state them as axiomatic. ” 

The reader will notice that Bro. Andrews has had another 
“revolution of sentiment on this subject” since the last Grand 
Lodge, for he then specifically declared that 

“ Legitimacy, regularity ” were not involved in the question, and that ‘‘as 
Master Masons we are not interested in the slightest degree in any controversy 
that may prevail over these points. ” (See Andrews pamphlet, page 7.) 

If Bro. Andrews should have another such “ revolution of 
sentiment” in 1888, the Grand Lodge may be asked to declare 
“irregular, illegal and unmasonic” the Mystic Shrine, the 
Royal Masonic Rite, Royal Order of Scotland, or any other of 
the various Rites whose members must be Master Masons, if 


1 7 


perchance, in Carson’s opinion, they should interfere with the 
growth or influence of his Scottish Rite. 

On page 11 of his pamphlet, Andrews furnishes to the 
Master Masons of Ohio, a unique description of what he calls 
the “Masonic Edifice.” In describing it, he admits the foun¬ 
dation to consist of the Blue Lodge degrees of Entered Appren¬ 
tice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. Above these he places 
the Chapter, Council, Commandery, and in the “Upper Cham¬ 
ber” the Northern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite, while “on the 
roof of the Temple, with their axes, hatchets and saws,” o’er- 
topping all, he places the Cerneau Rite. How refreshing it 
must be to the Master Masons of Ohio to be informed by 
Andrews (32 0 ), that Carson’s Autocratic Scottish Rite forms 
the roof, or covering, of their Symbolic Lodge, and upon this 
roof or covering, the Cerneau Rite, when they have been 
taught from time immemorial that the ropf, or covering, 
was the “ starry decked canopy of heaven,” that has 
covered Symbolic Masonry with glory and safety ages be¬ 
fore the Chapter, Council, Commandery, or Scottish Rite were 
launched upon the Masonic world. Why now provide a new 
covering ? Has the Master Mason’s faith in the eternal canopy 
of heaven wavered ? Are we now indeed the “ degenerate sons 
of a noble Masonic ancestry, ” that we would attempt to build 
upon the Master Mason’s degree another tower of Babel , in order 
to reach the canopy of heaven through a foreign Scottish Rite ? 
Have we forgotten the teachings of the Fathers in Israel, 
and are we at last following after “strange gods?” No! 
The starry decked heavens, the glorious canopy of our 
grand old Symbolic Masonry, must be in the future what 
it has been in the past. No alien Rite, however eager and am¬ 
bitious it may be to “ o’erleap itself,” should ever be permitted 
to assume to itself such a position and claim. The much 
abused Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite (Cerneau) has never put forth such a 
preposterous claim. But such a claim is in perfect keeping 
with the other acts of the advocates of autocratic power—of 
“Grand Lodge Sovereignty”—who now claim to overshadow 
Symbolic Masonry. 

Andrews, on page 14, declares : 


i8 


“ The mercenary peddlers of cheap degrees have invaded the territory of 
Ohio, and set up these ‘Cerneau’ Societies ; they claim them to be Masonic— 
regular and legitimate Masonry—and are beguiling many good men. ” 

This is only another one of the many falsehoods that have 
been put forth by the enemies of the Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite, to de¬ 
ceive and mislead the Master Masorts of Ohio, and it is high 
time that it should be nailed to the post, so high that every 
honest mason can read and judge for himself. 

The Anc. \ Acc. *. Rite, for the U. S. A. \ their Territories 
and Dependencies (Cerneau) is a regularly organized body, as has 
already been shown in these pages. It is “ legitimate and legal , ” 
as the Records of Carson’s Northern Juri. *. Council, the suppressed 
Reprint , clearly prove. No better evidence can be demanded 
by any mason who is not devoid of justness and candor. 
This evidence was published to the Masonic world in 1886 
in a pamphlet entitled “ Reply to the War Whoops of Enoch 
T. Carson, ” by the Masonic historian, Robert B. Folger, M.D., 
and which contains a sufficient number of extracts from the sup¬ 
pressed Reprint to fully prove the claims to regularity and legiti¬ 
macy of the Anc.*. Acc.*. Rite for the U. S. A. 

When the Anc. *. Acc. *. Rite was founded in this country 
in 1807 (seven years before the Northern Jurisdiction saw the 
light) its jurisdiction extended over the State of Ohio. While 
it may not have had any local bodies established in this State, 
yet Ohio belonged to its jurisdiction, and any other bodies 
claiming to be the Ancient and Accepted Rite coming after 
1807, and claiming exclusive jurisdiction over Ohio, are 
simply trespassers upon the Cerneau’s territory. It is 
“ Squatter Sovereignty ” in Masonry. A man, or corporation, 
comes into possession of a certain tract or territory, and occu¬ 
pies a portion of it only at first, but when he comes, after the 
lapse of years, to occupy the other portion, and finds it has 
been squatted upon by an interloper, does that invalidate his 
claim—or do the courts at law refuse to put him in possession 
of his lawful rights? Certainly not. The Cerneaus came to 
Ohio because they had a right to come. They did not come to 
make war on the Northern Jurisdiction through the Grand 
Lodge of Ohio, or by persecution of their brother Master 


Masons. They came to claim their own—supporting their po¬ 
sition with indisputable Facts and Proofs. 

The Cerneaus are not “mercenary peddlers of cheap de¬ 
grees.” The records of their bodies will vie with those of any 
other Order or Rite in this broad land. The degrees of the 
Rite have been regularly conferred in regularly organized bodies, 
and for such sums as were thought to be equitable and just to 
all Master Masons of moderate means. While it may be proper 
for the autocratic Northern Jurisdiction to charge now $\\o for 
its degrees, there was a time (when it was first instituted in 
Ohio) when it conferred its degrees for $5 and $10, as is certified to 
by living witnesses who paid that sum for the degrees, and which 
truthful statement dare not be denied by either Andrews or the 
leaders of Carson’s Rite. The history of the establishment of 
the Northern Jurisdiction in Ohio, by K. H. Van Rensellaer, 
would, if generally known, prove interesting reading to 
the Fraternity. It is a source of congratulation to the 
Cerneaus that they have never conferred the degrees in Ohio 
for as cheap a sum as has been done by the Northern Jurisdic¬ 
tion Rite. The Cerneaus have never “beguiled many good 
men ” into their Rite, but, instead, it is a matter of pride 
to them that their membership have come into their Rite 
with their eyes open and their minds fully alive to the ques¬ 
tions at issue. They have read and understood the literature 
and claims of both parties, and have chosen for themselves, as 
only intelligent Masons could do. Before charging the Cerneaus 
with “beguiling many good men,” would it not have been well 
if Andrews had explained why his Northern Jurisdiction Rite 
suppresses its reprint ! Could anything be more convincing 
to the candid Master Mason as to which Body may be properly 
charged with “beguiling good men”—the one that invites the 
fullest investigation of its records and doings, or the one that 
suppresses the reprint of its Proceedings ? 

On page 15 of his pamphlet Andrews says: 

“To decide the character, regularity, or legitimacy of a society claiming to 
be a Masonic Lodge in Ohio, we look to see if it is upon the roll, and exists by 
authority of this Grand Lodge.” 

“ When we come to the Scottish Rite, we apply the same rule; and we 


• 20 


determine the character of the subordinate body by a reference to the roll and 
authority of the Supreme Council, Northern Jurisdiction.” 

The absurdity of the above doctrine is only equaled by the 
innocence of its expounder. It is perfectly right for the Grand 
Lodge, when called upon to decide such points in regard to its 
subordinate bodies, to look upon its own roll. It is right for the 
Anc. *. Acc.'. Rite, under like circumstances, to look upon its roll. 
So with the Northern Juris. \, the Royal Order of Scotland, and 
every other Rite in the world. But why should the Grand Lodge 
concern itself as to what is upon the roll of all these foreign 
Rites and Orders? If the rolls of the Cerneau Rite and the 
suppressed reprint of Carson’s Rite, prove that the DeLaMotta- 
Gourgas-Raymond Robinson-Northern Jurisdiction Rite is spu¬ 
rious, irregular, illegal and unmasonic, by what process of 
reasoning can the Grand Lodge of Ohio lawfully declare it 
otherwise to the Masonic world ? 

If, in the changing events of the future, a “Cerneau” 
should be elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, 
and he should be tempted to decide the Northern Jurisdiction 
“irregular, illegal and unmasonic,” is there a Mason silly 
enough to believe that Carson, Andrews and Company would 
then advocate their present specialty of “ Grand Lodge Sover¬ 
eignty?” Would they instruct the Grand Lodge to look upon 
the roll of the Cerneau Council, to see if the Northern Jurisdic¬ 
tion was there ? 

The Grand Lodge of Ohio has never officially placed the 
Anc.*. Acc.*. Rite (Cerneau) or the Northern Jurisdiction upon 
its roll, nor ought it to do so. The plea of the latter Rite of 
having been recognized by the Gr. *. Lodge on the ground of hav¬ 
ing been temporary tenants of five or six Blue Lodges in the 
State, is puerile and ridiculous. And the plea, that on account 
of this tenancy, the Grand Lodge of Ohio has acquired the 
power and the right, not only to declare the Northern Jurisdic¬ 
tion a masonic body, and the Anc. *. Acc.*. Rite, (Cerneau) an 
unmasonic body, but, also, to refer “to the roll and authority 
of the Supreme Council Northern Jurisdiction” to find if the 
Anc.*. Acc.*. Rite “is there nominated in the bond.” and not 
finding it there, to declare it “irregular, illegal and unma- 


21 


sonic”—is preposterous, and without a shadow of law or au¬ 
thority. 

On page 5 of Andrews’ Pamphlet, appears the following: 

“ This Grand Lodge is committed to the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction, 
and guards her rights with zealous care.” 

It may be true that the Grand Lodge is committed to the 
doctrine of “Exclusive Jurisdiction” over the Three Blue De¬ 
grees, but when the Grand Lodge, under the advice of Bro. 
Andrews, adopted the false doctrine of “ Grand Lodge Sover¬ 
eignty, ” and then declared the Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite “irregular, 
illegal and unmasonic, ” and the Northern Jurisdiction Scottish 
Rite regular , legal and Masonic , that moment she waived he? 
right to “ exclusive jurisdiction ” over the degrees of Entered 
Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason, which are also the 
first three degrees of the Northern Jurisdiction. The Grand 
Lodge, by this act, has unintentionally committed a serious 
mistake. It has recognized the Northern Jurisdiction as being 
in “regular, legal and Masonic” possession of the degrees of 
Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. And 
that Scottish Rite can now “legally” confer them if it sees fit 
to do so. 

We have shown conclusively, that the doctrine of “ Grand 
Lodge Sovereignty” as enunciated by Carson, Andrews, and 
Company, is a false and misleading one, and worthy of the 
source from whence it sprung. It is altogether unconstitutional, 
unlawful, arbitrary and against the light of reason and common 
sense, and productive only of discord and disgrace. It has al¬ 
ready begotten strife in the Blue Lodges—set brother against 
brother—broken up the fraternal feelings of many years—driven 
Lodges and individual brethren into the civil courts to secure 
that protection to their rights and liberties, guaranteed to them 
not only by Masonic Law, but by the Constitution of their country. 
Injunction after injunction has been issued by the Courts re¬ 
straining the Grand Master-r-Subordinate Lodges—and 33rd 
members of the Northern Jurisdiction, from interfering with the 
constitutional rights of Master Masons, and others will follow 
as long as this monstrous doctrine is forced upon American citi¬ 
zens. Now what is the remedy ? It is this. Do as the Grand 


22 


Lodge of Massachusetts has done. Rise with one accord, and put 
the stamp of disapproval upon all such unlawful and unmasonic 
acts. 

Albert Pike, Gr. *. Commander of the Southern Jurisdic¬ 
tion, the mother of the Northern, decides this question of 
“ Grand Lodge Sovereignty ” fully and completely. He says : 

“ I wish to say distinctly here, as I said to you in a communication long ago, 
that I should think it very unwise on our part to endeavor to induce the Grand 
Lodges in our J urisdiction to denounce the illegal organizations in New York, 
claiming to be of our Rite. I doubted both the propriety and policy of such 
an attempt when it was about being made in the beginning; and I said to you 
soon after, that if we admitted the right of a Grand Lodge to decide our Su¬ 
preme Council legitimate, this would admit its power to decide us illegitimate, 
if it should arrive at that conclusion. The power to recognize and tolerate im¬ 
plies the power to condemn and prohibit. I think it due to our own self-re¬ 
spect that we should advise the Brethren of our Obedience not to seek any¬ 
where in our Jurisdiction, to have action taken by the Grand Lodges, in regard 
to spurious Organizations claiming to be of our Rite.” (See Transactions S., 
Jurisdiction 1884.) 

Having gone over the real ground of complaint made by 
Andrews in his pamphlet, it would not appear necessary to do 
more than refer to those parts of his speeches where he 
takes occasion to draw a ridiculous parallel between the 
Union Army in the war of the Rebellion, and his De La 
Motta—Gourgas — Raymond — Robinson — Northern Jurisdic¬ 
tion and the respectable Grand Lodge of Ohio, upon one side, 
and the Anc. \ Acc. *. Rite (Cerneau) upon the other. 
This comparison was evidently drawn to influence the 
old soldier vote in the Grand Lodge—the argument of 
the demagogue. Instead of displaying his forensic abilities in 
such comparisons, would it not have been more in the inter¬ 
ests of truth and candor, if he had compared the rule or ruin 
policy pursued by his autocratic Northern Jurisdiction leaders, 
to the same rule or ruin policy pursued by Jeff Davis and his 
followers, who because they could not control and govern, at¬ 
tempted to destroy. Davis and his followers did not leave a 
stone unturned in order to carry out their nefarious plans, even 
to the seeking of foreign aid to crush the ranks of freedom. So 
with Carson, Andrews and Company, unable, of themselves, to 


23 


crush the democratic Anc. \ Acc. \ Rite, they now seek help 
from the venerable Grand Lodge of Ohio, and to divert the 
mind of the Fraternity from their real object and aim, apply 
such epithets as rebels, anarchists, traitors, etc., etc., to those 
loyal Master Masons who dare differ with them in opinion on 
Scottish Rite questions. 

Andrews’ misapplication of a quotation from the “Ad¬ 
dress to the Masons of Ohio,” published in 1887, by this Grand 
Consistory, returns, boomerang-like, to its projector. The 
quotation, “Lay on, Macduff, and damned be he who first 
cries, Hold! enough,” was given in reference to the quarrel 
among Knight Templar bodies, and had no reference whatever 
to the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and was not a “challenge ” to it. 
Inasmuch, however, as Andrews has seen fit to misapply this 
quotation, let us see which party has first cried for help. Is it 
the autocratic leaders of the Northern Jurisdiction who suppress 
the Reprint of their Proceedings, and then fly for aid and com¬ 
fort to the Grand Lodge, seeking a safe position behind her 
skirts in imitation of their great prototype, Davis, of Rebellion 
memory ? Or is it the Anc. \ Acc. *. Rite for the U. S. A. 
(Cerneau) that has nothing in its records to conceal, standing 
forth fearless and alone, seeking no aid or help from the Grand 
Lodge, or from any other Rite, inviting the fullest investigation 
as to its history, merits and claims, believing in the everlasting 
principles of a Representative form of government, and which 
dares to say— 

“Thy Spirit, Independence, let me share ! 

Lord of the lion heart, and eagle eye, 

Thy steps I follow with my bosom bare, 

Nor heed the storm that howls along the sky.” 

It is plain to the Fraternity of the world, which Rite, 
the Anc.'. Accepted, or Carson’s, has already cried—“Hold, 
enough ! ” 

The Master Mason is now ready to make the inquiry— 
What does all this mean ? The reply is ready. 

The Supreme Council for the United States of America, 
their Territories and Dependencies is a Representative Body. 
It ignores everything of an autocratic nature, and pronounces the 


OCT 27 1900 


24 

detestable autocratic Constitutions, of 1786, a Forgery and a 
Fraud. Its principles are republican, and its government in ac¬ 
cord with the Constitution of our land. On this account it has 
been very prosperous and successful, numbering many hundreds 
of members in Ohio. It has refrained from interfering in the 
affairs of other rites. It has never persecuted brethren, if in the 
exercise of private judgment they should choose to connect 
themselves with other Rites or Orders. It is opposed to all pub¬ 
lic defamation of Masonry, or of Masonic brethren who choose to 
differ from it in opinion. It practices a liberal and gentlemanly 
behavior towards its own members, and a liberal contribution to 
the needy. On these accounts the Northern Jurisdiction wire-pull¬ 
ers are angry, and would put a stop to the success and prosperity 
of our Council. Unable to accomplish their purpose by their own 
strength, they have carried their contention into the Grand 
Lodge of Ohio', and seek to prostitute its powers to their aid by 
causing it to pass laws and issue edicts declaring the Anc. \ Acc. \ 
Rite spurious and clandestine—defaming the characters of its 
members and making it penal to have any communication with 
them. They see that they are losing their power and influ¬ 
ence, and these measures are taken by them to regain what they 
have lost. But Truth beareth the victory. All false laws, enact¬ 
ments, edicts, persecutions and decisions will never distort or 
unmake the facts of history, which clearly show that the Anc. \ 
Acc.*. Rite is not ‘‘illegitimate and illegal,” but is legitimate 
and legal. Its members are true and loyal to Symbolic 
Masonry, notwithstanding the efforts of their enemies to 
make them otherwise. Its principles and practices are correct, 
and if fully carried out, will live continuous with the destinies 
and the liberties of our beloved country. 

Published by order of the 

Sovereign Grand Consistory of Ohio , A.*. P.\ 
jR.\ S.’. } Ancient Accepted Rite for the 
United States of America , their Territories 
and Dependencies. 


HS 766 
. A8 
1887 
Copy 1 


To the Master Masons of Ohio. 


RESPECTED BRETHREN: 

Attached hereto, you will find the address of ITon. IT. IT. Ingeksoix, 
Grand Master of the State of Tennessee, which we are credibly informed, was 
approved by the Committee On Jurisprudence, and unanimously adopted by 
the Grand Lodge. The address clearly shows forth the following facts : 

First. That there exists in these United States several factions of what 
is known as the “ Scottish Rite.” A Rite totally foreign to Blue Lodge 
Masonry. These factions are contending for supremacy. 

Second. That there exists a wide-spread conspiracy on the part of tho 
leaders of one of these factions—the Northern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite—to 
secure the offices in each Grand Lodge and thereby obtain control of Grand 
Lodge machinery for the purpose of introducing and enacting legislation 
favorable to that rite and inimical to all others. 

Third. That the conspirators have violated the ancient landmarks of » 
the Order, and broken their solemn obligations to preserve the same. They 
have embroiled the Grand Lodge of Ohio and its constituent lodges in the 
foreign strife. They have ruthlessly torn asunder the fraternal ties of years, 
by arresting Lodge Charters, and expelling honorable and upright Master 
Masons, for no other cause than that of being faithful to their vows as Master 
Masons, and presuming to exercise their God-given “ right of 'private 
judgment and opinion ” as to what Society or Rite outside of the Blue 
Lodge they might choose fellowship with. 

Fourth. That the un-Masonic course pursued by the leaders of the 
Northern Jurisdiction, is not only an unjustified and illegal attack on members 
of the Ancient Accepted Rite, for the United States, (whom they dubb 
“ Cerneaus”), but is a blow struck at the constitutional rights and liberties of 
every American citizen. 


From the Grand Master of Tennessee. 


Address of II. H. Ingersoll , Grand Master of Grand Lodge 
of Tennessee , F. <& A. M. 


FRATERNAL RELATIONS. 

Our fraternal relations are cordial with all sister Grand Lodges, save one 
only. 

Last month the Grand Master of Ohio notified me that he had withdrawn 
the commission of Brother Wilbur F. Foster as Representative of the Grand 
Lodge of Ohio near this Grand Lodge ; and our Representative near the 
Grand Lodge of Ohio having departed this life, and the Grand Master of 
Ohio having refused to receive a Representative, diplomatic relations between 
these two Grand Lodges may be said to be in abeyance; at the option of Ohio. 

The cause of this I presume to be the Scottish Rite war in Ohio, and my 
request to the Grand Master of that State to nominate for our Representative 
near the Grand Lodge of Ohio some worthy brother who had not been con¬ 
spicuous in bitterness and intolerance in that war, as none such could properly 
represent the liberal, generous spirit of Tennessee Masonry. To this the 
Grand Master Responded : “ The majority of Masons in Ohio do not tolerate 
treason and rebellion,” and recommended a brother much esteemed in Ohio, 
but as I was left to infer, fully in harmony with the proscriptive spirit of 
the majority.” Having no connection or relation with either of the Scottish 
Rite factions, whose contention has disturbed the peace and harmony of our 
Order in Ohio, and knowing that Tennessee Masons should be represented by 
• a brother conspicuous for his loyalty to Ancient Craft Masonry, rather than 
to any Scottish Rite, I requested him to name some other brother of high 
-character and good standing, not tainted with 11 treason or rebellion,” but 
opposed to the policy of the dominant majority of that State. I also sug¬ 
gested the name of a worthy brother, a Past Grand Officer, and a member of 
the Scottish Rite body orthodox in that State, but liberal and tolerant in his 
views, and asked if he would be acceptable as our Representative. The sug¬ 
gestion was not favorably received, because, as the Grand Master wrote, the 
brother named was then the Representative of the Grand Lodge of New York. 
This mistake of the Grand Master he afterwards corrected by saying the 
brother’s term had expired, and another brother had been appointed in lieu, 
as Representative from New York. But no change of view appeared from 
the discovery of his mistake; and I inferred that the reason for declining to 
accept my suggestion was the very liberality of views and opposition to 
Masonic intolerance which had caused me to suggest his name. With a 
courteous and considerate reference to Ohio loyalty and Tennessee rebellion, 




the Grand Master assured me in plain terms, that no representative would be 
received from us unless he was not only an orthodox Scottish Rite Mason, but 
also an active and prominent supporter of the locally dominant faction in its 
policy of using the great power of the Grand Lodge to support an order of 
the Scottish Rite. 

Such a Mason, however high and respected at home, I could not know¬ 
ingly appoint as our Representative. Such a one could not correctly represent 
the Grand Lodge of Tennessee. Whatever may be the views and opinions of 
Tennessee Masons upon the merits of the Scottish imbroglio, or whether we 
sympathize with either of the three or four factions claiming legitimacy and 
•contending for supremacy in that Order, one thing we can and do agree about. 

Ancient Craft Masonry, comprising the three Symbolic Degrees of 
Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason, universal and uniform 
throughout the world, is*absolutely free and independent of all other orders, 
and should not be, and cannot lawfully be allied with or dominated by any 
order of Scottish Rite Masons. Nor can we as Freemasons be called upon 
through our Grand Lodges to hear and decide any controversy between these 
various claimants to legitimacy in that Rite. If they pretend—any of them-- 
to confer our degrees, then they^are clandestine Lodges, and their votaries 
are to us as “ heathens and publicans.” We know them not, and can hold no 
sort of Masonic communication with them. If they do not lay claim to the 
Symbolic Degrees, then they] are not of us. We have no knowledge or 
standard by which we can test their claim, try their cause, or decide their 
rights. As well might we interfere with Odd Fellows, United Workmen, 
Knights of Honor, Knights of Pythias, or Knights of Labor. If they claim 
the right to base their order upon our triune temple, we cannot forbid them ; 
and one, two, ten or twenty different and even belligerent bodies may indulge 
in this pastime ; we can endure them all without harm or fear— on the out¬ 
side, They can hurt us no more, we feel them no more than, does the firm 
earth that supports us all. But outside is their place and their sphere ; out¬ 
side they are impotent to injure Freemasonry; outside they cannot destroy 
our peace and harmony ; and outside they must remain and not profane our 
sacred precincts. 

Standing to and abiding by the Ancient Charge I received as Worshipful 
Master, “ that it is not in the power of any man or body of men to make 
innovations in the body of Masonry,” I earnestly protest against the intro¬ 
duction of this foreign element into our perfect and symmetrical body. Re¬ 
calling my official oath as Grand Master, that I would “ maintain the usages 
and customs of Free and Accepted Masons,” and my obligation to “cling to 
the old landmarks,” I protest against any alliance of any kind with any order 
or rite that claims precedence or superiority, and demands submission or sub¬ 
serviency. Believing that Lodge membership makes a brother a member of 
the whole Masonic family, and that in the exalted character of a Master 
Mason all avenues and^opportunities are open, all rights and privileges are his 
which the broad empire of Freemasonry affords, I protest against the ex¬ 
ternal conditions imposed by the Grand Master of Ohio upon worthy brethren 
in his own jurisdiction to receive an honorable commission from the Grand 
Lodge of Tennessee. Nay, more ; believing that a Freemason is a free man, 
I deny the right of any'Lodge, [Subordinate or Grand, to dictate to him 
whether he shall or shall not become a member of any other society, order, or 


fraternity, whose purposes and practices are not immoral. And, saving only 
clandestine symbolic Lodges, it is not the function—nay, it is not within the 
scope of the power of any Lodge, Subordinate or Grand, to hold an inquisi¬ 
tion over and pronounce upon the legitimacy, regularity, orlhcdoxy or loyalty 
of any such order, society or fraternity. 

These I believe to be cardinal doctrines and vital principles of Ancient 
Craft Masonry. They correctly represent the spirit of Tennessee Free¬ 
masons. Because in this spirit I addressed the Grand Master of Ohio a brief 
reply to his note requesting me to appoint a Representative near that Grand 
Lodge, and asked him to nominate some worthy brother in good standing who 
agreed with these views, who was an orthodox Craft Mason, and esteemed our 
Order above any Scottish Rite, he ‘‘ declined an exchange of Grand Repre¬ 
sentatives until he could have the assurance that the spirit of Tennessee 
Masonry as expressed by its Grand Master was not in favor of rebellion.” 

This means, my brethren, that Ohio intends not only to accept and estab¬ 
lish a foreign dynasty in her own limits, but to compel her sister States to 
recognize it, and to approve of its dominion at the peiil of a loss of fraternal 
relations. 

I would gladly have avoided this unpleasant subject, but circumstances- 
forbade. The action of the Grand Master of Ohio compelled me to report the 
facts ; and my view of the danger with which the subject is fraught requires 
me to sound the note of warning, that the integrity of Craft Masonry might 
not be further impelled. 

The Ohio Grand Lodge prescribes by edict what order of the Scottish 
Rite Freemasons may unite with, and not only expel them but forfeits Lodge 
charters, if they join any other order of the Scottish Rite. This, of course, 
we cannot prevent; for it is within her Jurisdiction. But we are not bound 
to approve such a pernicious policy, directly or indirectly. Such resolutions 
and conduct are unwise, as our Committee on Correspondence has more than 
once said. 

See proceedings of 1883, page 407. 

See proceedings of 1885, page 113. 

It is contrary to the generous, liberal, tolerant spirit of Freemasonry, and 
smacks rather of the persecutions of the middle ages. We have the right 
to think so and to say so without being stigmatized as “rebels and traitors.' 7. 
And much as I could wish to be on fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge 
of Ohio, if those relations can only be purchased by approving such harsh 
and severe measures, and such perversion of powers, then Tennessee Free¬ 
masons and Ohio Masons will not be able to exchange Representatives from 
their Grand Lodges. But Ohio will ere long be relieved from her present 
thraldom, and a wiser, freer, and better Masonic spirit will pervade her 
Grand Lodge. She will believe as we believe ; and then Freemasonry will 
resume her scepter and recall her own in Ohio. And we shall all again re¬ 
sume fraternal relations, when the vaunted loyalty of Ohio shall be, not sub¬ 
serviency to a Scottish Rite, but unswerving fidelity and unfaltering devotion 
to the Ancient and Honorable Order of Free and Accepted Masons, which 
owns no superior on earth ; which has ever been the Apostle of Liberty, the 
foe of Tyranny, the advocate of Peace and Good will; whose dominion is in 
the hearts of men ; and whose empire reaches the farthest bounds of civiliza¬ 
tion. 


/^neient and /Accepted Rite 


FOR THE 

United States of America, t&eir Territories and Dependencies 

ORIENT OF OHIO. 

Illustrious and Dear Brothers: 

On the evening of Tuesday, November 14, 1888, a ren¬ 
dezvous of the Sovereign Grand Consistory of Ohio was held 
at Columbus. A very large representation from all the Val¬ 
leys was present, and a most enthusiastic meeting was held. 

The fact that our enemies in the so-called Northern Juris¬ 
diction have captured the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and are now 
turning it from its legitimate and proper duties, and using it 
to oppress those of its members who belong to our Rite, does 
not change the faith of our Brothers, but on the other hand 
makes them more than ever determined to exhaust every 
proper and legal means to preserve their rights as Master 
Masons and members of our beloved Consistory, conscious 
that they are in the right, and that the Grand Lodge has been 
wrongfully diverted from its proper and legitimate functions 



and duties, and used for the purpose of circumscribing the 
private judgment of its members. 

An eminent President of this Nation, General Garfield, 
has said, u The right of private judgment is absolute in every 
American citizen.” We, indorse that principle, and we deny 
the right or authority of the Grand Lodge to restrict our liberty 
of choosing what associations or societies we shall belong to. 
It is our right as free American citizens, to choose our own 
associates and friends, and by becoming Masons we did not sur¬ 
render that right or our manhood. 

True Masonry demands no such concession, but spurns 
with contempt the servile doctrine, and the frightened, abject 
spirit that upholds it. The line of policy forced upon the 
Grand Lodge by those who have obtained control of its 
machinery and thus foisted themselves upon the body of Ohio 
Masonry, is shocking to the instincts of all liberty loving 
American Masons. It is the inquisitorial practices of the 
middle ages revived in free America. The tendency is 
destructive of true manhood, true citizenship, and true free¬ 
dom. 

Mindful of these facts and in view of the fact that there 
was reported at the last annual session of the Grand Lodge, 
F. & A. M., of Ohio, the attempts of the Grand Master during 
the past year to hinder the installation of Master Masons, in 
offices to which they had been duly elected simply because 
they were members of the Consistory, and to hinder the elec¬ 
tion to office of all members of this Rite, and: 

That the Grand Master, regardless of his duty to act im¬ 
partially in a matter affecting a large number of Master 
Masons, whose lives and characters are without reproach, 


nevertheless referred the part of his report pertaining to said 
acts to a committee of thirteen, all of whom, except two, were 
members of the so-called Northern Jurisdiction, and: 

That the report of said committee perverted, misrepre¬ 
sented, and falsified the facts, and the acts and position of this 
Consistory toward the Grand Lodge, and thereby prejudiced 
the members of the Grand Lodge against this Consistory, and: 

That the members of the Grand Lodge were not aware 
that the Grand Master and eleven out of the thirteen compos¬ 
ing said committee were members of the so-called Northern 
Jurisdiction Scottish Rite, while no member of this Consistory 
was appointed on said committee, and not perceiving that the 
Grand Lodge was being used as an instrument to oppress the 
members thereof belonging to this Consistory, to the end that 
the so-called Northern Jurisdiction might succeed in its 
wicked endeavors to suppress this Consistory, after failing 
to do so by any legitimate manner, the members of the Grand 
Lodge, thus misled and deceived, approved said Northern 
Jurisdiction report, and at the close of the session, when the 
majority of the members had left for their homes, the 
remaining few pretended to pass a resolution prohibiting 
Master Masons from applying for, or receiving, the degrees 
of this Consistory, and prohibiting members of our Consistory 
from inviting Masons to take the grades and from being 
present at or assisting to confer the grades of our Bodies, and: 

Being assured by lawyers that the Grand Lodge has 
exceeded its authority, as above mentioned, and rendered itself 
subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts; further, that it 
is the right of all American citizens to appeal to the Civil 


Courts for protection of their rights when violated; it was, 
therefore, 

Resolved , That expulsion from a Lodge of Master Masons 
on account of membership in this Consistory, or any bodies 
subordinate thereto, shall not affect his standing as a member 
of any of the bodies of this Rite. 

Resolved , That it is the sense of this Consistory that 
active work should be carried on in every Valley of this Rite 
and Jurisdiction in Ohio; and we renew our pledge of Jan¬ 
uary 11,1888, to u promote the interests of this Rite, and, by 
all lawful efforts, increase its membership and enlarge its 
influence.” 

Resolved , That, to obtain a more speedy final decision of 
the legal rights of our members as Master Masons, proceedings 
in quo warranto and by injunction be at once commenced, and 
trials had as soon as possible; and that a committee be ap¬ 
pointed, consisting of three members in the Valley of Colum¬ 
bus and one member each in the other Valleys of Ohio, to 
institute and have charge of such litigation wherever insti¬ 
tuted. 







I* 1, 


\ 


* 






0 


* 





I 




"\ 


I 


v • \ 





* > 


i 



library of congress 




0.027 273 207 3 























* ' i \ .} 

" •, A < 

4 j ’ :■* \ 

», j * 

















































































